Odgers, J.

1. This is a case in which it is important to look at the plaint. The plaintiff entered into a lease with Defendants 1 and 2 in 1907. These two persons are said to have since become in-solvents and are not represented in second appeal. In 1913 Defendants 1 and 2 sub-leased to the 3rd defendant. The plaint sets out that Defendants 1 and 2 were in enjoyment of the plaintiffs property as tenants and that the 3rd defendant is in enjoyment of the premises as a partner of Defendants 1 and 2. It may at once be said that this case of partnership was given up in both the lower Courts and was not pressed before me here. The plaint then goes on to ask for "losses on account of rent from January 1916 to 15th December 1918" when the plaintiff sold the property to a stranger Paragraph? of the plaint runs as follows:

The plaintiff claims relief in this suit for losses on account of rent and for damages for use and occupation at Rs. 50 per month.

2. The material issue settled in the case is: Is the plaintiff entitled to collect the rent of the suit building?

3. It is now contended before me that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed as against the 3rd defendant on any one of the seve